LAWS(HPH)-1996-8-10

JOGINDER SINGH VERMA Vs. H.P.VIDHAN SABHA

Decided On August 05, 1996
Joginder Singh Verma Appellant
V/S
H.P.VIDHAN SABHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the actions of the Respondent No. 1 whereby he has been placed below Ms. Indu Bhandari (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No. 2) in the seniority list dated 4 -5 -1987 circulated by the said Respondent as well as of his confirmation from a subsequent date to that of Respondent No. 2 and has farther prayed for quashing Annexures P -11,P -14 and P - 19 and thereafter re -drafting the final seniority list of Clerks and place him above Respondent No. 2. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the decision rejecting the representation of the petitioner on 5 4 -1991 vide Annexure P -24. Petitioner has also prayed for declaring Rule 9 -A (3) of the H. P. Vidhan Sabha Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1974), being ultra vires, illegal and un constitutional in so far a j this rule seeks to change the seniority position in the order of confirmation.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in I (.P. Vidhan Sabha in June, 1983 and he joined as such on 10 -6 -1983, according to him he successfully completed his probation under Rule 9 of Rules of 1974 as it was never extended though Respondent No. 1 had power to have extended it, Thus according to the petitioner his date of confirmation should have been 10 -6 -1985 and not 9 -8 -1985 as shown in Annexure PI. As a result of wrong placement of the petitioner, he was not given the seniority as Clerk from the due date, but was wrongly given the same from 13 -7 -1988 vide Annexure P -5. According to the petitioner in final seniority list as on 1 -1 -1984, Respondent No. 2 did not figure anywhere and in the subsequent seniority list as on 1 -1 -1985 circulated vide Annexure P -24 Respondent No. 2 is below the petitioner, Similar is the position of final seniority lists as on 1 -1 -1986 and 1 -1 -1987 circulated vide Annexures P -9 and P -10. However, in the final seniority list vide Annexure -P -ll as it stood on 1 -1 -1988 Respondent No. 2 was shown to be above the petitioner in the said list. Against this, the petitioner represented to Secretary of Respondent No. 1 through its representation Annexure P -12, Again in the seniority list circulated vide Annexure P -14 as on 1 -1 -1989, petitioner was shown below Respondent No. 2 when again he represented to Respondent No. 1 vide h: s representation. Annexure P -16. It appears that petitioner had been informed on 7 -7 -1988 by Respondent No. 1 regarding his application and on 19 -4 -1989 vide Annexure P -16 it was further informed that such applications were turned down. Petitioner was not satisfied with the order Annexure P -16, as such he filed an appeal for the restoration of seniority, to tie Secretary of Respondent No. 1 on 25 -8 -1989 vide Annexure P -17 and the same was not accepted as is evident from the communication Annexure P -18. As on 1 -1 -1990 another order was issued by Respondent No. 1 wherein again the petitioner was shown below Respondent No. 2 which action was again objected to by the petitioner vide Annexure P -20. While objecting vide Annexure P20f petitioner had referred to a decision of the Apex Court to which a reply was sent on behalf of Respondent No 1 that the petitioner should submit an authenticated copy of the decision of the Apex Court Here it may be appropriate to mention that inspite of clear reference io the judgment and its citation having been mentioned in Annexure P -20 an abnormal stance was taken by Respondent No 1 for reasons best known to it. When Respondent No. 1 sent Annexure P -21,we are constrained to observe in this behalf that it appears to have been issued without application of mind and without caring to examine this matter in its right perspective,

(3.) However, the petitioner was informed that his representation stands dismissed as r o action is possible since after consideration of all aspects of this mattei7 and in view of the already decided case, Against this the petitioner submitted an application to Respondent No. 1 vide Annexure P -23 wherein amongst other things, it was pointed out by the petitioner that he had been appointed on 10 -6 -1983, whereas Respondent No. 2 had been appointed on 5 -1 -1984, which clearly showed according to the petitioner that he was senior to the said respondent. In these circumstances he prayed to again look into the matter judiciously and to assign him the right place in seniority list This representation was made on 28 -2 -1991 (Annexure P -23), but it was again turned down by the Respondent No. 1 and it was con tended that the decision of the Supreme Court was in a case of rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and Rules of H. P. Vidhan Sabha Secretariat have been framed under Article 187(3) of the Constitution of India. As such decision is not applicable to H. P. Vidhan Sabha.